1 CGHC010194892020 2026:CGHC:29609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1011 of 2020 1 - Smt. Omin Bai Wd/o Late Tulsiram Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 01 Bhathapara, Temri, Post Surpa, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattis- garh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suraj Kumar S/o Late Tulsiram Sahu Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Omin Bai Sahu, R/o Ward No. 01 Bhathapara, Temri, Post Surpa, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattis- garh 3 - Suryakant Sahu S/o Late Tulsiram Sahu Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Omin Bai Sahu, R/o Ward No. 01 Bhatha- para, Temri, Post Surpa, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Roshni Sahu W/o Jhamman Sahu Aged About 19 Years (D/o Late Tul- siram Sahu) R/o Jerwai , Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh., Dis- trict : Balod, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - Purshottam Sinha S/o Late Manoj Sinha Aged About 24 Years R/o Arkaar Chowk, Kanwar, District Balod Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Balod, Chhat- tisgarh 2 - Murlidhar Rathi S/o Prithviraj Rathi R/o Jamgaon R, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.07.15 17:03:24 +0530 2 3 - The Orinetal Ins. Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager , Divisional Officer, Parmanand Bhawan, Near Rajendra Park, G.E. Road, District Durg (Insurer) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shubham Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advo- cate Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement in the compensation amount, against the impugned award dated 15.01.2020 passed by the Learned Additional Motor Acci- dent Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 305/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed the claimants’ application and awarded Rs. 9,78,800/- along with interest for death of Tulsiram Sahu. 2. Mr. Pravesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, which ought to have been awarded. He would further submit that under the head of consortium amount has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be awarded. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.1 & 2, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is no higher side which is liable to be reduced. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that, after exonerating the Insurance Company on account of breach of the policy conditions, the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in di- recting the Insurance Company to pay the compensation first and 3 thereafter recover the same from the owner. The principle of "pay and recover" has been wrongly applied and the said direction is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival sub- missions made herein above and gone through the records minutely. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards fu- ture prospects. In the opinion of this Court, the claimant is entitled to addition towards future prospects in accordance with the settled princi- ples of law. Accordingly, the compensation deserves to be enhanced by granting an appropriate addition towards future prospects. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the conventional head of consortium to the appellants/claimants. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimants/appellants are also entitled to compensation under the said head. 7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 8,450x12=101400 8,140x12=101400 2. Future Prospect Nil (+)25% 25,350/-; Total 1,26,750/- 3. Deduction (-)1/3 i.e. 33800/- = 67,600/- (-)1/3 i.e. 42250/- = 84500/- 4. Multiplier 67600 x 13= 8,78,800/- 84500 x 13 = 10,98,500 5. Loss of Estate 25,000/- for love & affection 18,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses 25,000/- 18,000/- 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 4 7. Loss of Consortium to appellants No. 1 to 4 50,000/- for loss of consortium & es- tate 48,000x4 = 192000 Total 9,78,800/- 13,26,500/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,78,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,26,500/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,78,800//-, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 3,47,700/-. 9. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit on the date of the accident and, there- fore, held that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the in- surance policy. However, considering that the claimant is an innocent third-party victim, the learned Claims Tribunal, relying upon the princi- ple of "pay and recover", directed respondent No.3/Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance with liberty to recover the amount from respondent Nos.1 and 2, the owner and driver of the of- fending vehicle. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., this Court finds that the direction issued by the learned Claims Tribunal is in accordance with the settled legal position and does not call for any interference. 10.Accordingly, respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and shall thereafter be at liberty to re- cover the additional amount from respondent Nos.1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. 11.The concerned respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @6% per annum from the 5 date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti